EPA resignation needs more scrutiny and other letters to the editor

EPA resignation needs more scrutiny and other letters to the editor

January 19th, 2013 in Opinion Letters

EPA resignation needs more scrutiny

The Chattanooga Times Free Press featured an article on page A5, published by McClatchy Newspapers, titled "EPA administrator to step down." This article went on to describe some of Lisa Jackson's accomplishments during her four years.

What this article didn't tell the readers is why Jackson is actually stepping down from the EPA.

According to an article titled "Behind EPA Chief Lisa Jackson's Resignation," written by Raven Clabough, "Jackson's tenure was marked by controversial policies involving a number of high-profile issues including global warming, the Keystone XL pipeline, and emissions controls on coal-fired plants. And recent scrutiny over Jackson's use of an alias email account has led some to believe that her resignation was inevitable."

"Earlier this year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the EPA for documents involving Jackson's use of alias email accounts, operating under the name 'Richard Windsor,' which drew attention from the GOP and an audit by the EPA inspector general."

Fox News carried this story one time, The Chattanooga News Free Press carried the small 3-by-5-inch article one time. A resignation of this significance, why only one news article?

BYRON J. HENDRIX, Cleveland Tenn.

Most of editorial is pure hogwash

I was glad to see that your editor, Mr. Johnson, was right in his prediction on Jan. 9, that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would not be inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame. The rest of the article was pure hogwash.

Over the years, I have never heard Babe Ruth's name associated with drugs, unless you want to count cigars and beer, neither of which will enhance your performance. Fact is, if Ruth had not been a pitcher the first five years of his career, Bonds might still be trying to catch him. And, by the way, the Babe during those years had a better winning percentage and a lower ERA than Roger Clemens.

Where illegal drugs are concerned, I can only wonder what Mr. Editor doesn't understand about the word illegal. Maybe he should do an interview with Lance Armstrong and find out.

As a postscript, Barry Bonds was convicted of perjury two years ago during the on-going investigation of performance-enhancing drugs.

JIM PARRISH

Time to protect all human beings

I was greatly moved by Isabelle Von Memmingen's excellent article on Jan. 13.

Her sentiments are right on target. We mourn the Sandy Hook tragedies, but equally tragic is the slaughter of thousands of unborn children every single day in our country.

When will people smarten-up and demand laws that protect all human beings, both born and unborn?

God is watching.

JILL WALSH

King best choice for city District 4

If you live in the East Brainerd area, you probably know Ryan King. Not just the name on the campaign signs that were first on the scene this election season, but the man himself. Mr. King has been an active member of the East Brainerd community for more than three decades.

And due to this long-term community commitment, many folks on this side of town are quite familiar with him and have solid relationships with him. He is the absolute best choice to represent his friends and neighbors on the Chattanooga City Council.

Just take a look at his resume: He attended East Brainerd Elementary, Ooltewah middle and high schools and UTC. He currently served on the Hamilton County Zoning Board of Appeals, is vice president of Friends of East Brainerd, secretary of the Brainerd/East Brainerd board of the Chamber of Commerce, vice president of East Brainerd Elementary PTA where his son attends school, was a 2011 graduate of Leadership Chattanooga and was recognized as one of Chattanooga's "20 Under 40" in 2012 by Chatter magazine.

District 4 is in dire need of fresh and accessible representation. Given his knowledge of the East Brainerd constituency, Mr. King has my vote.

THOMAS E. CARMICHAEL, East Brainerd

We aren't safer with guns in homes

While a high school teacher in the 1950s, I started an NRA rifle team.

National Rifle Association now is a misnomer. National Assault Weapon would be more accurate. I cannot conceive of any sporting use of an assault weapon or a 32-shot handgun that has any purpose other than mass murder or making owners thrill with the power in their hands.

The myth is that we are safer if we have a gun in the home. Guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, 11 times more likely in a criminal assault, and seven times more likely in an unintended shooting death or injury.

The Second Amendment authorizes a "well-organized militia" and was written when arms were flintlock muzzle loaders.

FRED H. WRIGHT, Ph.D

Most don't need guns for protection

The purpose of a gun is to wound and kill. This is what it is made for. Regardless of the reason you use it, this is the intended result. There is no such thing as a "right" to wound and kill.

All assault weapons should be banned because there will always be unstable people in our society, and we cannot control this factor, or those who would deliberately kill for whatever their purpose or mind intent.

You say you need a handgun for protection. You probably do if you are a gang member, or in a few other instances, but most people don't. The odds are much higher that your gun will be used in an accidental wounding or killing, such as domestic situation, an argument with someone, or a child's curiosity and gun availability.

What can we do? Start with common sense. Make it more difficult to get guns of all kinds. It seems to be easy now. Don't let fear and NRA pressure result in arming everyone (especially our teachers). Don't let everyone carry guns everywhere! How stupid can we be to allow this.

We can also limit the influence the NRA and other organizations have over our legislators through their political donations, gifts, lobbying, super pacs, etc. Pass laws banning these activities.

JUDY MOYERS

Teen drivers need parental guidance

This new year, parents of teen drivers should resolve to learn how to best protect teens behind the wheel. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the U.S., but there are steps parents can take to reduce crash risks. For example, parents can require their teen drivers be off the roads before 10 p.m., ban cellphone use -- hand-held and hands-free -- and never allow them to carry teen passengers. Parents also should spend as much time as possible behind the wheel with their teens, even after full licensure. These simple rules safeguard teens from elements proven to increase their already high crash risk.

As the leader of the Tennessee Teen Safe Driving Coalition, initiated by the National Safety Council and The Allstate Foundation, I often hear about tragic crashes that could have been prevented through simple restrictions such as these. Studies show teens follow their parents' lead, so parents should set a good example and enforce safe driving habits. Teen lives depend on that parental guidance and involvement.

Our most vulnerable drivers deserve to navigate the most dangerous time of their lives safely. Parents should resolve to help them do just that.